Morality Just Is

[The happy Objectivist]

I'm not going to try to change your mind, but I will clarify further what I meant.

I'm not disputing people make choices, but your belief that there is an objectively logical way to make those choices. There's a survivorship bias at work here. I think my way is objectively logical and the fact that I've survived proves that ... except it doesn't. Logic and intelligence play a role in a serendipitous fashion, but because of the factors we can't account for, or are unaware of, there's also a bit of luck involved such that the supposedly objective logic doesn't work in all cases.

Maybe you can improve on the current state, but that means you are always looking forward to what ought to be, not what is. And the reason for future improvements is hard to establish.

"Objectively logical" is a redundancy. Reason guided by logic is the only means of gaining conceptual knolwedge. What is knowledge if not the grasp of a fact by a mind or the grasp of an object by a subject. All knowledge involves a relationship between the subject of consciousness and the objects it is aware of. That relationship is expressed by the primacy of existence. Any other method of knowledge would therefore be a subjective method of knowledge which reverses the relationship to give primacy to consciousness.

Reason is adherence to facts, logic is adherence to the the fact that facts have primacy. As long as one specifies that knowledge is contextual and does not evade relevant facts then logic does not require luck to work and future knowledge will never overturn past knoledge. I'd be glad to help you to understand reason and contextual certainty if you would like.

 

[J_B_]

Reason guided by logic is the only means of gaining conceptual knolwedge.

I don't agree with your definitions or your premises, and therefore don't agree with your conclusions either. And that's what I said earlier. You're never going to get agreement on these things.

"Objectively logical" is a redundancy.

It's not. You should familiarize yourself with subjective logic and informal logic.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

I don't agree with your definitions or your premises, and therefore don't agree with your conclusions either. And that's what I said earlier. You're never going to get agreement on these things.

I've not tried to convince you. I don't propose to convince anyone who denies basic facts that are incontestable. I've simply tried to answer your questions.

 

[J_B_]

I've not tried to convince you. I don't propose to convince anyone who denies basic facts that are incontestable. I've simply tried to answer your questions.

Mmm. Well, thanks for answering my questions.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Mmm. Well, thanks for answering my questions.

You are welcome.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

I'm not going to try to change your mind, but I will clarify further what I meant.

I'm not disputing people make choices, but your belief that there is an objectively logical way to make those choices. There's a survivorship bias at work here. I think my way is objectively logical and the fact that I've survived proves that ... except it doesn't. Logic and intelligence play a role in a serendipitous fashion, but because of the factors we can't account for, or are unaware of, there's also a bit of luck involved such that the supposedly objective logic doesn't work in all cases.

Maybe you can improve on the current state, but that means you are always looking forward to what ought to be, not what is. And the reason for future improvements is hard to establish.

Of course. I'm always looking for the ideal way to act. I'm always doing this in a state of limited knowledge. I'll make mistakes along the way and I'll learn from them. I'll improve every day until the day I die. I can look at what I'm doing (is) and I can analyze it and find errors and make changes (ought). It's not luck. I don't need omniscience to know what I know. I'm never going to have omniscience so it's a ridiculous standard. Instead, I use reason which is self-correcting. I build knowledge by identifying what I perceive and integrating, making new knowledge fit with the old. I can be confident in this process because I have an objective starting point that is incontestible. I don't have to worry about my starting point because it's secure and it is my foundation. Then in the process of integration, I'll catch mistakes and so the same process of reasoning gives me the ability to find and fix mistakes. But If I don't have a good starting point then I'm in the situation you suggest. I'm forever unsure and I just have to hope that what I call knowledge is really knowledge of reality.

And once I've integrated new knowledge I don't have to keep doing it over and over again and I don't have to worry that something I don't know will come and upturn everything I know now. That's because I specify the context in which I'm certain. Certainty is when all the facts in a given context point to one conclusion exclusively without any chance of an alternative. This requires complete honesty on my part, to consider the entire context of facts available to me, not evading facts that don't fit what I want or desire to believe. It means always integrating the primacy of existence into all of my thinking, giving primacy to facts over feelings, desires, wants, imagination, etc.

 

[Astrid]

In the attached video, at time stamp 9:44, the statement is made, "Moral behavior depends not on moral reasoning, but on having the right terminal goals."

To understand what he means by terminal goals, you'll have to watch the video. However, at another point he states a corollary that terminal goals are not found by reasoning. They just are.

My summary would be that he is saying morality is not found by reasoning. It just is.

If you disagree, what is your counter argument? Again, you'll probably have to watch the video to argue against his position ... though I suspect some will argue against it without watching. That'll be fun as well, but for different reasons.

Terrif. End justifies means

 

[J_B_]

Terrif. End justifies means

That's an astute observation, though, if true, I don't think he means it in the typical way.

I've seen a lot of movies, memes, etc. recently whereby pop culture is celebrating the end justifying the means, but by saying it in different words. For example, I've been hearing the phrase "the heart loves what the heart loves" a lot. Or, in the much beloved Harry Potter, the thing that bothers me is not the magic, but the fact that whatever Harry does, no matter how heinous, it's played as justified simply because he's Harry - the chosen one.

If someone sets their mind on achieving a goal, there are typically only a limited number of means of achieving it. If only immoral means are among the choices, in my experience very few people will give up the goal. Most justify it as necessary.

In the end, then, it could be he is saying that if we don't choose our terminal goals via reason, and if we can't reason from is to ought, then maybe we're also not reasoning about the morality of the means to achieve the goal. We just do it.

 

[Astrid]

That's an astute observation, though, if true, I don't think he means it in the typical way.

I've seen a lot of movies, memes, etc. recently whereby pop culture is celebrating the end justifying the means, but by saying it in different words. For example, I've been hearing the phrase "the heart loves what the heart loves" a lot. Or, in the much beloved Harry Potter, the thing that bothers me is not the magic, but the fact that whatever Harry does, no matter how heinous, it's played as justified simply because he's Harry - the chosen one.

If someone sets their mind on achieving a goal, there are typically only a limited number of means of achieving it. If only immoral means are among the choices, in my experience very few people will give up the goal. Most justify it as necessary.

In the end, then, it could be he is saying that if we don't choose our terminal goals via reason, and if we can't reason from is to ought, then maybe we're also not reasoning about the morality of the means to achieve the goal. We just do it.

I was being a bit flip.
In the event, I am not big on absolute rules.

Sometimes the end does justify the means.
Its pretty much an everyday thing, really.

 

[J_B_]

I was being a bit flip.

I know.

 

[Astrid]

I know.

Rats. Thought I fooled you.

 

[J_B_]

Rats. Thought I fooled you.

I am always making judgements about the subtext of what people say to me. It seems apparent to me that others do the same. However, I learned long ago that, while I may craft my responses based on those judgements, it's best not to call people out on what they seem to be thinking.

 

[zippy2006]

Interesting thread. Let me first offer some critiques:

In the attached video, at time stamp 9:44, the statement is made, "Moral behavior depends not on moral reasoning, but on having the right terminal goals."

The Humean approach is full of problems. One is present in this quote, "The right terminal goals." At 10:18 he falls into a similar error, "[The AI's] superhuman moral reasoning doesn't make its actions good." His point there was that although AI may be able to engage in moral reasoning, AI cannot engage in moral behavior because it does not have the "right" terminal goals.

But moral nihilism logically follows from Humean ethics. If "morality just is," or more precisely, "terminal moral goals just are," then there is nothing praiseworthy or blameworthy, right or wrong, or good or bad about any particular terminal goal. If, as Miles claims, terminal goals cannot be chosen and cannot be changed, then human behavior is no more or less moral than the behavior of AI. Both are entirely non-moral.

To understand what he means by terminal goals, you'll have to watch the video.

Another basic problem with the Humean view can be seen clearly at ~5:00 where he claims that beliefs can be stupid simpliciter, but actions cannot. Like Hume, Miles has failed to grasp the basic fact that beliefs are a subset of actions. Consistency would require the same retort, "But why ought you believe what is true?"

If you disagree, what is your counter argument?

Another basic problem with Miles is his inability to consider non-deductive reasoning. He perceives that deductive reasoning presupposes first principles, and that first principles cannot be arrived at deductively, but then he makes the remarkable claim that the first principles of moral reasoning (terminal moral goals) are just given to us, and each of us has different terminal goals which are at the same time immutable. Any philosopher worth his salt knows that first principles do not exist in this way, whether they have recourse to induction, intuition, intellection, voluntarism, or some other account.

I suppose the most obvious counter-argument is that humans and computers are different, not the same. These AI folks don't seem to grasp this fact, but most everyone else does. Christians, for example, understand that conversion represents a fundamental turning towards God--a revolution of terminal goals that requires the intervention of supernatural grace. It turns out we humans aren't deductive reasoning machines whose goals are handed to us by our programmer.

 

[durangodawood]

....But moral nihilism logically follows from Humean ethics. If "morality just is," or more precisely, "terminal moral goals just are," then there is nothing praiseworthy or blameworthy, right or wrong, or good or bad about any particular terminal goal. If, as Miles claims, terminal goals cannot be chosen and cannot be changed, then human behavior is no more or less moral than the behavior of AI. Both are entirely non-moral.....

Praise and blame are the emotional coercion tools that society uses on individuals to keep them in line. If society deems something worthy of praise, then its praiseworthy. Isnt that enough?

 

[zippy2006]

Praise and blame are the emotional coercion tools that society uses on individuals to keep them in line. If society deems something worthy of praise, then its praiseworthy. Isnt that enough?

I disagree, but let's stay on topic. Formally what follows is that you can't say humans are moral but machines are not. You cannot talk about the "right terminal goals." You cannot talk about actions as being good or bad in a non-instrumental sense. Miles falls into all of these blunders.

 

[durangodawood]

I disagree, but let's stay on topic. Formally what follows is that you can't say humans are moral but machines are not.

Humans can choose to pursue terminal goals or not. That makes them moral creatures. Machines dont have that choice.

....You cannot talk about the "right terminal goals."....

So what? If you can talk about the goals we have, there's no need to talk about them being right or wrong.

...You cannot talk about actions as being good or bad in a non-instrumental sense. Miles falls into all of these blunders.

We can talk about how society labels actions as good and bad to give emotional force to the various choices that enable or hinder our achievement of our natural terminal goals, based on accumulated wisdom.

 

[zippy2006]

Humans can choose to pursue terminal goals or not.

No, that isn't true for Miles. For Miles if you choose to not seek a terminal goal, then either it isn't a terminal goal or else you were able to change your terminal goal.

So what?

So the position is incoherent.

We can talk about how society labels actions as good and bad to give emotional force to the various choices...

So what?

 

[Tinker Grey]

So the position is incoherent.

Why?

The idea that we are evolved beings; that we evolved to be social animals; that social animals negotiate their interactions; and that the degree of rightness is the degree to which an act conforms to the social contract; and that these agreements change as circumstances change -- all of it seems coherent.

 

[zippy2006]

Why?

The idea that we are evolved beings; that we evolved to be social animals; that social animals negotiate their interactions; and that the degree of rightness is the degree to which an act conforms to the social contract; and that these agreements change as circumstances change -- all of it seems coherent.

In this thread I am only talking about the OP and the video presented therein. For the author of the video, Miles, the terminal moral goal cannot change and is not the social contract. Miles' position is incoherent because he believes the terminal goal can be right or wrong, and yet he denies our ability to assess and change our terminal goal. How then could it be right or wrong?

 

[Tinker Grey]

In this thread I am only talking about the OP and the video presented therein. For the author of the video, Miles, the terminal moral goal cannot change and is not the social contract. Miles' position is incoherent because he believes the terminal goal can be right or wrong, and yet he denies our ability to assess and change our terminal goal. How then could it be right or wrong?

Ah. Sorry for misunderstanding.